Sadiq Khan: I pay tribute and thank the more than 5,000 voluntary bodies which provide community transport around the country, making a substantial positive impact on transport priorities. Some sectors of community transport are already eligible for concessionary travel. Local authorities are also able to offer concessions on any form of community transport on a discretionary basis. We have no current plans to extend the £1 billion national concessionary scheme.

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure what the Mayor's priorities are, but they are not the Croydon tramlink or the Dartford crossing. In fact, he seems obsessed with interfering with Conservative leadership issues. I will ensure that we try to impress on the Mayor the priority of serving Londoners and addressing some of the challenges they face, rather than increasing fares on buses, tubes and trams.

Maria Eagle: The Government are committed to building a fair and family-friendly labour market, and my Ministerial colleagues and I meet regularly with both unions and representatives of business to discuss this aim and how to advance it. Today's announcement that fathers will be able to take up to six months off on paternity leave by replacing the mother at home for some of her maternity leave is a further advance for the flexibility agenda.

Harriet Harman: I would strongly refute the implication behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. If he wants to raise those issues, he can do so in Treasury questions next week.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the desirability of prisoners having Sky TV in their cells? When I asked in 2006 how many prisoners had Sky TV in their cells, the answer was 1,500. When I asked the same question again just before Christmas, the figure had risen to 4,070. Many of my constituents-law-abiding people-would love to be able to afford to have Sky TV, but cannot. Why should prisoners be able to have Sky TV in their cells? May we have a debate so that we can find out how the Government can justify that?

Tony McNulty: It is a pleasure, if that is the right word, to speak in this debate in this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggested, we have had a role in these events through history, however small. Let me just point out to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)-I had a row with Michael Heseltine about this once-that the Nazis were not elected. They never secured a majority. It was the foolishness of the Deutsche Zentrumspartei and the German Conservative party-no partisan point intended-that allowed Hitler and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei into power. They were never elected. That may be a small point, but I make it.
	It is instructive, too, to look back in  Hansard and read the 1937-38 debates on the emergency in Europe that led to the Kindertransport initiative. Many strong speeches were made saying that we must do something, but there were also those which asked what it had to do with us. Let us remember that this was at a time when the Prime Minister of the day, Neville Chamberlain, wrote-I do not have the exact quotation, but I cited it on the 70th anniversary of the Kindertransport-that the Jew, although rather shifty was not terribly unpleasant and we should probably do something to help them. That was the Prime Minister in 1937-38.
	When my hon. Friend asks whether national Holocaust memorial day has been successful, my answer is that that is debatable. I recently did a question time with others at a synagogue in my constituency, and some of the questions asked revolved around the issue of whether it was safe for British Jewry to remain in Britain. The answer is profoundly yes, with qualifications, but if people have to ask that, we have some way to go. Why do we remember? It is for two reasons. First, we must never forget, but secondly, we must never repeat. The two go hand in hand.
	Why do we remember the Shoah, the holocaust, more than any other historic event? It is because of its banality, its normality and its extraordinary ordinariness. It is because of the mechanised, industrial scale on which a state's decision to eradicate a race was carried out. We should not equivocate in comparing atrocities, but that mechanistic and industrial nature is unprecedented, and that is why we remember it and should continue to remember it. As the survivors fade away, we have all the more reason to remember. That is why I endorse what everyone has said about the Holocaust Educational Trust. I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau with my hon. Friend in 1998 or 1999, as he said, but as even Kindertransport survivors fade away, we should remember all the more. That is why this debate is important.
	The main point that I wish to make is that you cannot equivocate on this issue. You cannot say that you are doing all you can to avoid a subsequent holocaust if you let things slide or pass. I say that not as a partisan point: I genuinely mean it. You cannot indulge Kaminski, given his past. You cannot indulge people who dabble with the history of the Latvian Waffen SS and claim, "That's okay, we don't really mean it and we'll gloss over their history." You cannot do that and mean it when you say, "Never again." The lesson of national Holocaust memorial day must be that you cannot be just a little bit anti-Semitic. You cannot be just a little bit of a holocaust denier, and you cannot be just a little bit in support of terrorism.

Motion made (Standing Order No. 204A), That the Bill be read the Third time.

John Thurso: It is with considerable interest, if not exactly unalloyed pleasure, that I have followed the proceedings on these Bills over a number of afternoons. Among other things, that has had the unintended consequence that at a recent dinner party I attended I was able to speak at length and depth on the subject of pedlary, much to the dismay of the other guests. Notwithstanding that, the protagonists have clearly arrived at a workable, if not necessarily amicable, truce. In that regard, it would be quite wrong of me or anybody else to stand in the way of this Bill's further progress and I hope that the House accords it a Third Reading.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Reading Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Further consideration of Bill, as amended (Progress reported, 21 January)

Christopher Chope: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I am sorry that he was not here earlier for the Reading Borough Council Bill. However, I understand that a significant funeral service took place today in Reading, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), from the other half of Reading, could not be present. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was at the same event, but I am happy to give way to him.

Martin Salter: I can confirm that there was a tragic funeral, which both I and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) had to go to. I am delighted that the Reading Borough Council Bill's passage has been eased and that an accommodation has been found, but many of us have spent an inordinate amount of our lives-which we will not get back again-on the objections of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He appears to base a lot of what he says on a conversation with a single significant pedlar, so will he confirm the communications that he has had with the pedlar community as a whole? I am confused as to why we have had to spend so much time on these measures.

Christopher Chope: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your customary indulgence. I will say no more than I have already said. I commend this major group of amendments to the House.
	 Amendments made: 77, 78, 80 and 81.--(Mr. Chope.) 
	 Motion made (Standing Order No.204A), That the Bill be read the Third time.

Consideration  of Bill, as amended .
	 Amendments made: 35, 36, 47, 48, 52 to 54, 58, 72, 77, 79, 80, 82 and 83.- [Mr. Chope].
	 Motion made (Standing Order No. 204A), That the Bill be read the Third time.

Kevin Brennan: I would not dare to speculate on what Her Majesty might think on any subject. The process that we have gone through is the proper process and we have followed the proper procedures of the House for dealing with private legislation-not private Member's legislation, as one hon. Member mentioned earlier, which is a completely different animal.
	Another point that has been raised relates to the services directive and whether it affects street entertainers. I can confirm that the Government do not accept that it does. The Licensing Act 2003 regulates street entertainment that takes place in front of the public once a local authority licence has been obtained. Street entertainers do not rely on pedlar's certificates and should not be affected by changes linked to the implementation of the services directive. I say that as someone who has engaged in busking on occasion, and who has a next-door neighbour who is a street entertainer and would not forgive us if we allowed anything that infringed on his rights.
	In conclusion and with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to my neighbour, Francis Maxey, who has just lost his wife, Kate Hunter, who was a great campaigner on all sorts of issues and I am sure that she would never have allowed us to do something like that either.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.